Android Review of I'll Be Gone in the Dark

I'll Be Gone in the Dark (2020–2021)

Decent, but sloppy, ode to a celeb's late, talented wife.

[6/10 · 20 July 2020]

The stories of the EAR/GSK and author/investigator Michelle McNamara are inextricably connected. The problem is not that this film attempts to tell both, its that unfortunately this film does justice to neither. The fundamental problem, in my opinion, is a poor understanding of solid storytelling. Great documentaries tell us riveting stories about subjects we might otherwise be indifferent to, ex: Crumb, Grey Gardens, Hoop Dreams, The Thin Blue Line etc.. This film gives us very little to hang on to. It's convoluted, jarringly paced and confusingly edited. I like Amy Ryan, but her "acting" as narrator is frequently overacted and amateurishly melodramatic. Unlike Michelle who seems much different in person. It's also unclear at times as to who is speaking/narrating (and from what time frame). I don't require much to be spelled out in films but I found myself asking my wife (who is a true crime nut herself and read MMs book) wait, who? What? When? Where? And she would inevitably say "uh..I'm not sure". Then it would be onto the next thing. A few titles of names and dates might have helped here. There is also a slightly crass patina of narcissism throughout this film. A famous man venerating his late wife. Out of love? Guilt? Narcissism? I felt all three. On one hand of course that's fine. Why not? It's a story that can be told. But there are things that didn't sit well with me. Patton signing his late wife's books. Why? Because he wrote the introduction? No one does that. It's Because he is famous. That's it. If he were just a normal guy, a supportive husband who wrote the introduction to his late-wife's book, he would not be signing them. (If you can think of an example I will stand corrected). It seems to me to be small look into how celebrity skews perspective and encourages self-absorption and narcissism. It's a small thing to notice, but to me it says much about Patton. Further, the issue of her drug abuse, and his enabling of it, seems to be entirely ignored. Yet It's all there. But it's treated so casually as if it's not really a problem. As if no one was acting irresponsibly. She habitually misused/abused/was addicted to pharmaceuticals, for anxiety, to sleep, and Patton enabled all of it. He essentially justifies it by saying, with an almost proud smile, "it was like the story was more important than herself". No. It really wasn't. I've seen 4 eps...and we'll finish it. But my (and my wife's, who was a fan of the book) perspective on it is, I suspect, not what the makers hoped for.